Author: Gian-Carlo Pascutto
Date: 02:28:14 08/30/01
Go up one level in this thread
On August 29, 2001 at 23:10:56, Robert Hyatt wrote: >The "weights" don't always reveal what they stand for. I've had the DT >code for at least 2 years. It isn't new. But I can give you the weights I >use in Crafty and they don't tell you _what_ I am actually doing with them, >only the numbers I am using. Their bishop of opposite color + pawn ending >evaluation was _very_ good. Once Hsu explained it to me at an ACM event. >You won't find that explanation of how it works in the stuff you reference. > >Which is a shame, actually. There's a lot in the thing that we won't ever >know in great detail. The code includes the full eval itself. You can check it out and see how they did kingsafety, bad bishops, passed and blocked pawns, etc... The tuner has that code because it is useless without it. You can't tune an eval if you haven't got any. What I don't see is the endgame stuff you talk about. I see two possible explanations: a) they thought it was so great that it shouldnt leak out and carefully removed all references from it from the tuner b) they simply didnt _have_ it yet at the 1988 US Open. Perhaps it was added afterwards in DT, DT2 or DB, and you are confused about when they talked about it to you or implemented it. Make your pick. I think what the code shows is that in the 1988 US Open, Deep Thought did not have great sophisticated evaluation. An ok one yes, but it's certainly been surpassed by the micros in the meantime. Which doesn't mean anything about the evaluation of DT after 1988 or of its succesors, but I find it awkward to be making much fuss about DT's supposed evaluation if you can _look_ at it and see what they did and did not do. -- GCP
This page took 0.01 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.